Amitai Etzioni Notes

Commercial Sex Equals Relational Sex?

In a cynical review of a sensationalistic book, the New York Times featured--front page--the thesis that there is nary a difference between men who must wine and dine women before they fork over sex, and johns who pay for prostitutes. In a discussion that would (or at least should) embarrass a bunch of fraternity boys, the New York Times argues, "Money is the elephant in every bedroom." Toni Bentley's review ("Meet, Pay, Love") of Hos, Hookers, Call Girls, and Rent Boys, a collection of essays written by sex workers, finds nothing problematic about equating sex between romantic partners and sex between clients and prostitutes, asking "Why is sex supposed to be free? It never is." Ms. Bentley complains that "it is still taboo to regard sex and money as inextricably interwoven" and quotes approvingly British artist and author Sebastian Horsley, who asserts, "The difference between sex and money and sex for free...is that sex for money always costs a lot less." (The book itself is concerned only with straight-up money-for-sex transactions and has little to say about role of money in personal, intimate relationships.)

To highlight its point, the paper of record, once the highly regarded grey lady, provided the following case in point: A woman sitting on a stage, a drink in one hand and a cigarette in another, her legs apart. A man is going down on her. She is tapping on his shoulders every minute or so, to collect another twenty dollars for the privilege of continuing. She is grinning all the way to the bank, enjoying herself. There are many other anecdotes that have the same degrading flavor.

The review disregards several obvious compelling facts, even if we ignore the sexist assumption that these days men must wine and dine their partners, only after which will women consent to have sex--which presumably they have no inherent interest in.

First, commercial sex is often not voluntary but coerced. Hundreds of thousands of women each year are lured out of their villages, drugged and sold, and raped and beaten until they agree to become commercial sex workers.

Second, sex workers are greatly exploited; most of their incomes goes to the pimps and bosses, not to the sex workers themselves.

Thirdly, they are prone to sexually transmitted infections, and, fourth, are often involved with drugs and crimes beyond prostitution.

On the other side of this false equivalency, relational sex often is part of a much more encompassing, meaningful relationship. True, some youngsters and a few older types "hook up" for a short, even one-time, encounter. However, by and large in lasting relationships, sex is part of initiating, building, and sustaining bonds of affections, which commercial sex lacks. These bonds are a vital part of what makes a good life.

One need not be an old fashioned moralist to be surprised by the sophomoric nature of the book review The New York Times chose to feature.

Do We Have Inalienable Responsibilities to One Another?

I have a confession to make. I am an avid reader of personal advice columns. When I read those published generations ago, I feel that they provide a great insight what life was really like in those days--and what the prevailing norms were regarding what was considered right and wrong. Contemporary advice, by the likes of Carolyn Hax and Jeanne Phillips ("Dear Abby"), provide similar sociological fodder. In addition, they allow me to play a little game. I first read the question and ask myself what I would counsel, and only then read the advice the columnist gives. I am often stymied. The advice columnists "solve" most difficult problems by sending the reader to see a shrink.

Anyhow, I was reading the Carolyn Hax column the other day. A woman wrote that she was asked by her sister to serve as the guardian for her sister's kids in the event of her and her husband's death. The woman refused on the grounds that she and her husband did not want any children of their own, but she was troubled by the rift her refusal caused in her relationship with her sister.

Carolyn Hax took my breath away when she pronounced that responsibility for children lies with the parents, and that extended family are under no obligation to accept this responsibility for themselves.  (She did, however, note that this is not the case in many cultures, but asked if, even in these cultures, it would be in a child's best interest for a guardian to accept the responsibility only because of societal pressure.)

She added that the sister who refused to be the guardian had her reasons for making the choice, even if they were reasons others may deem selfish, and the sister with the children should accept that choice. She also rejects the notion that only option is that family takes responsibility or the children go to foster care, as guardians do not have to be family.

As I see it, family bonds do lay obligations on the members for the good of one another. We are not--to our siblings, parents, children--like causal acquaintances, and even friends have some obligations to their friends. Indeed, the very essence of the family is that its members do things for one another they feel they ought to do, even if they do not enjoy them. True, agreeing to take in someone's children is a very big commitment, but it typically merely entails providing a peace of mind for the parent. If death does strike, it does call for heroic measures, for the sake of the children.

In my view, even if the refusing sister is so hostile to children that she truly cannot take care of them, she still should accept the guardianship, with the understanding that she will make other arrangements for the children and ensure that these work better for the kids than her home. Family is more than chicken soup. I would love to hear what others think, would do, or have done.

 

Small Lies, Big Lies, and Economists

The timing could not be more inappropriate. The United States is finally moving to join all the civilized nations of the world by ceasing to execute people. It still has quite a way to go. So far, most states that still impose the death penalty have recently suspended executions until the Supreme Court rules on whether the ways people are currently 'put down' constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment; that is, whether lethal injection violates the constitution.

Organ Donations, Ad Hominem Attacks

When I recently laid out a communitarian approach to increase organ donations by drawing on new moral appeals, I was subject to a barrage of ad hominem attacks.

Under most conditions I would shrug my shoulders and move on. I have been in public life for many years and have seen people savaged quite regularly. I guess it is a price you pay for not sticking to footnoting in the stacks. However in this case this mode of communication concerns two matters that one should not allow to go by the wayside:

Do We Want a Market in Organs?

I raised this question in the New York Times on February 25^th in reference to a book review. In view of the venomous reaction from those who promote trade in human organs, please note the respect with which I treat those I differ with and the fact that I raised issues, and not attacked persons.